Britton v. Halliburton Services

• Decision Date: 04 May 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-173,94-173
• Citation: 895 P.2d 45
• Parties: In the Matter of the Workers' Compensation Claim of John A. BRITTON, Appellant (Employee-Claimant), v. HALLIBURTON SERVICES, Appellee (Employer-Objector).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 45

895 P.2d 45

In the Matter of the Workers' Compensation Claim of John A. BRITTON, Appellant (Employee-Claimant), v. HALLIBURTON SERVICES, Appellee (Employer-Objector).

No. 94-173.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 4, 1995.

Kennard F. Nelson of Kirkwood, Nelson & Huber, P.C., Laramie, for appellant.

Thomas R. Smith of Murane & Bostwick, Casper, for appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

GOLDEN, Chief Justice.

In this worker's compensation appeal, we consider whether substantial evidence supports the findings and conclusions of the hearing examiner.

We affirm the order of the district court denying additional benefits.

FACTS

On December 15, 1990, appellant John Britton (Britton), while working for Halliburton Services (Halliburton), fell from a moving truck, injuring his back and his right knee. Britton received medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits until March 14, 1991. Just before obtaining his medical release to return to work, Britton fell down a flight of stairs, breaking a toe. A physician gave Britton a full release to return to work on March 14, 1991. Britton, however, did not return to work because he did not feel he was 100% physically able.

On March 22, 1991, Britton consulted a second physician. The second physician diagnosed Britton's problems as a possible arthritic condition rather than a work-related injury. Britton, however, did not return to work at Halliburton. Although Britton continued to suffer pain and discomfort, it was not until approximately a year later that he saw a third physician.

The third physician ruled out inflammatory arthritis and ordered a Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan (MRI) of Britton's back. This approach was chosen because x-rays were inconclusive and anti-inflammatory medicine was ineffective. The first MRI, taken in May 1992, was of Britton's cervical spine. It proved to be inconclusive so an MRI of Britton's lumbar spine was performed in January 1993. The second MRI disclosed an abnormality with the last lumbar disc pressing up against the nerve root, i.e., a herniated disc. Britton received a referral to a fourth physician who prescribed physical therapy.

During the period in which the MRI scans took place and physical therapy started, Britton experienced two incidents that could have caused his back injury. First, Britton slipped and fell while mopping a floor, landing on his back. That accident resulted in emergency room treatment. Sometime later, Britton claimed his back "popped" during a physical therapy session. That event increased Britton's back pain.

In February 1993, Britton then received a referral to a fifth physician. After reviewing Britton's MRI results, that physician agreed Britton had a bulging or herniated disc. He testified that the initial work-related accident could be, and probably was, the mechanism which caused the injury to the disc. The physician acknowledged, however, that the fall down the stairs and/or the fall while mopping could have contributed to or caused the injury. The testimony of the fifth physician also suggests that, while an MRI scan could not date the initial injury, the presence of calcification around the rim of the disc could aid in dating a long-term injury.

After considering all the evidence, the hearing examiner concluded Britton had failed to show an entitlement to benefits based solely on the December 1990 injury. The hearing examiner found other possible sources of the injury, including the falls and the incident in physical therapy. In addition, the hearing examiner held that, while some calcification around the rim of the disc might date the injury, Britton failed to offer any such evidence.

DISCUSSION

Britton challenges the hearing examiner's conclusion that his injury was not further compensable after he received a release to return to work in March 1991. He contends the evidence proves that his fall from a moving vehicle on December 15, 1990, is the cause of his injury. In addition, he asserts that requiring a claimant to prove the absence of other possible sources of injury places an impossible burden of proof on him.

Standard of Review

This court has settled the standard for reviewing factual findings made in a worker's compensation hearing. If, after examining the entire record, we find substantial evidence to support the agency's finding, we will not substitute our own judgment for that of the agency. Under such circumstances, we must uphold the agency's finding. Jaqua v. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 873 P.2d 1219, 1220 (Wyo.1994).

Substantial evidence is relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept in support of a conclusion. It is more than a scintilla of evidence. Little America Refining Co. v. Witt, 854 P.2d 51, 58 (Wyo.1993).

Findings

The hearing examiner made the following findings relevant to this issue:

3. Dr. John D. Bailey released the employee/claimant to return to work without restrictions on March 14, 1991. However, the claimant himself did not feel that he was 100% able to return to work, and did not return to work.

4. Another physician who saw the employee/claimant on March 22, 1991, Dr. Anne MacGuire, believed that his problems stemmed not from a work-related injury but possibly from an arthritic problem.

* * * * * *

6. There are three incidents in the record where the employee could have sustained injury to his back, other than by the injury of December 15, 1990.

(a) Prior to seeing Dr. MacGuire, the employee fell down a flight of stairs. He testified to some increase in low back pain. His testimony is to some extent inconsistent with Exhibit 11 which relates no complaints other than a broken toe.

(b) The employee testified to his back "popping" during physical therapy.

(c) In August of 1992, the employee slipped and fell and went to the emergency room as a result of that fall.

7. Dr. Akmakjian's testimony is equivocal. He notes some ability to date a bulging disk by calcification. But employee/claimant has offered no evidence to date the bulging disk.

It is beyond question Britton sustained an injury to his lower back when he fell from the truck in December 1990 while employed by Halliburton. Britton contends that once he established the work connected injury, subsequent progression of that condition remains compensable if the worsening was not the result of an independent non-industrial cause.

The Wyoming statutes entitle an employee/claimant to additional benefits. WYO.STAT. § 27-14-605(a) (1991) ¹ provides in part:

If a determination is made in favor of or on behalf of an employee for any benefits under this act, application may be made to the division by any party within four (4) years from the date of the last payment for additional medical and disability benefits or for a modification of the amount of benefits on the ground of increase ... of incapacity due solely to the injury, or upon grounds of mistake.... (emphasis added)

The plain language of WYO.STAT. § 27-14-605(a) grants any party--employee, employer or the Worker's Compensation Division--a four-year window in which to petition to reopen a case for: (1) additional medical and disability benefits; or (2) modification of the amount of benefits because (a) of an increase or decrease...